Would it be kosher to put lines from Gertrude Stein’s c. 1935 work into the mouth of a character in a novel without attribution?
Depends on the number of lines, but if you’re just quoting a line or two, then it should be covered by fair use.
I think fair use would ask that you attribute the quote.
Not necessarily. If a character said, “A rose is a rose is a rose,” you wouldn’t have to attribute it.
I guess some context would be helpful. The principal names in Listen to Me are serendipitously similar those of two of my principal characters, and there are other accidental overlaps.
There’s a sort of bizarre sibylline character in the form of a schizophrenic, heroin-addicted woman who occassionally appears to rant at the other characters. Parts of Listen to Me would fit in well with her. It’s important for it to superficially appear to be random muttering, so it couldn’t really be attributed. About six lines from different parts of the play, maybe paraphrased. Stuff along the lines of “Sweet William had his genius.” “Need is not more cared for than needles,” “They’re so careless with their luggage,” “No Lillian for Sweet William.” “All the world is covered over with people.” “Nobody knows what anybody looks like.” “Any light is bigger than the moon.”
That sort of thing. The woman has some obsessions around stone, too, so I like the idea of her surreptitiously quoting Stein.
…serendipitously similar to those of two…
And I want to write a book. God help me.
Sounds like homage to me. And the reviewers who get it will think you’re a genius for making them feel smart.
Well, what I often see done is that at the end or beginning of the book there is a page ‘Acknowledgments’, where the writer says:
‘The poem on page X recited by Bzzzt is ‘After eating a burnt dinner’ by DiedTooYoung’ or so. By adding a page like that, you ensure that you are free from charges of plagiarism. The thing is, even with small quotes that are allowed by way of copyright law, some people might otherwise get the mistaken impression that you were trying to pass off someone else’s words as your own. A Shakespeare quote is different since that has become part of the language and is of well-known authorship.
Totally different cases, TTT.
In the US, those acknowledgments are almost always there because the poem is copyrighted and permission to use has to be granted. There are usually fair use issues connected with poems because they are normally so short.
And what Larry Mudd wants to do is different from quoting a coherent block of a work.
I wouldn’t think six lines out of the entire play would be a problem with fair use, especially if it were paraphrased. Go for it.
Exapno, while I see that I may have phrased it in a potentially misleading manner, I was adding on the presumption of the quote being covered under fair use. My mentioning a poem was indeed a bad example, and I should have added (to avoid mistakes) that acknowledgments may (are?) mostly be done for copyright reasons.
But the case is that the OP mentioned ‘lines’, which does fall under fair use if it is small, and this is what the other posters assumed. I wanted to add that even if it is covered under fair use, I would still recommend to attribute the quote to defuse allegations of plagiarism. But again, I should have put it in a less misleading way.
Why is anyone beginning this analysis with Fair Use? It seems to me that copying six sentences from a play is not reproducing the copyrighted work in copies. See 17 U.S.C. 106 If it doesn’t infringe a copyright, then there is no need to resort to Fair Use.
Are those of you applying Fair Use convinced that the OP posits copyright infringement? If so, could you provide me with citations to copyrihgt cases were a few lines from a play was adjudged an infringing activity?
Thanks for your input everybody. Thanks especially for the link, Robb.
I’m no lawyer, but the language in section 107 is pretty reassuring-- “In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include […] the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and […] the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.”
Seems like no worries. Thanks all!
(Now I have to track down a copy of the text-- The only form I’ve been exposed to it in is somebody else’s adaptation for the BBC.)
Without bothering to get caselaw, I would say that limited copying is an infringement for at least two reasons:
(1) it would make section 3 of 107 (“the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole”) meaningless. If only a 100% copy was infringement, why have section 3?
(2) even if it is not an infringement of section 1 of 106 (“reproduce the copyrighted work”), then it is probably an infringement of section 2 of 106 (“prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work”). Either way, it is a violation of 106 and copyright infringement and requires fair use in 107 to bail you out.
I think you should bother with caselaw. Fair Use doctrine was codified after Section 106 - I don’t see how enacting 107 suddenly kicked the threshold for 106(a) up to protecting every single sentence of a work, and I don’t remember learning that any copying from a large work was an infringement of the copyrighted work. More importantly, Section 106 involves asking the question, Is there an infringement? then Section 107 asks, Is that infringement excused? You conflate them by suggesting an excuse for infringement informs the analysis of whether an infringement even occurred. It’s something akin to claiming self-defense before finding out whether there is a dead body.
As far as it being a derivative work, you are simply carrying through your mistake from point (1). Those six sentences are not likely the copyrighted work. Consider this from the Notes to Section 106,
The OP does not posit a work based on the play - only that one character would spout words from the play.
If you are convinced that copying six sentences out of a play is an infringment, you could likely find similar enough court decisions to make a persuasive argument.
Actually, I think you should bother with caselaw. If you want to say everyone on the thread is wrong, how about backing it up with a cite or two.
My prediction is that you will not be able to find a single higher court case that finds limited copying does not rise to the level of infringement under 106, making 107 analysis unecessary. Not one. Perhaps you might be able to find some oddball lower court case or two that says something to that effect, but I have my doubts.
The great, great bulk of cases will simply assume a 106 violation and launch into a 107 analysis.
I wait eagerly for your research results.
what the heck. I did a quick google search and found an article on point here http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/property/respect/winickexcerpt.html
I’m such a nice guy. I even gave you a starting point to do your research.